What's new
By:

Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton-- senate voting history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
I agree, raising taxes on the poor rich who are barely making ends meet is a bad idea. I mean, hell, just look at how awesome our economy was between 2000-08! We lowered taxes and by the end of Bush's regime our economy had entered a new golden age...
 
The Thriller said:
I agree, raising taxes on the poor rich who are barely making ends meet is a bad idea. I mean, hell, just look at how awesome our economy was between 2000-08! We lowered taxes and by the end of Bush's regime our economy had entered a new golden age...
Click to expand...

1) It takes several years to have an impact on the economy generally, these things don't just happen overnight.

2) I'm not opposed to raising taxes, but 90% is beyond ridiculous and even you know that.
 
Howard said:
1) It takes several years to have an impact on the economy generally, these things don't just happen overnight.

2) I'm not opposed to raising taxes, but 90% is beyond ridiculous and even you know that.
Click to expand...

No Howard. It is ok to take all their money because they are not us.
 
I thought it was ok to take all their money because they were rich. No one is allowed to have more than anyone else, so we should take it all away and give it to everyone else so we can all have the same, or something.
 
Howard said:
1) It takes several years to have an impact on the economy generally, these things don't just happen overnight.

2) I'm not opposed to raising taxes, but 90% is beyond ridiculous and even you know that.
Click to expand...

90% is rough even for me to think about. But it's not unheard of either... 92% in the 1950's, and it steadily dropped for years after that. Economists have discovered that when the top tax rate was more than 90 percent(in the 50s), economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. Sitting at an $18T dollar debt, and historical evidence from a post war time(somewhat similar to what we have now) showing that we can have an increase in economic growth even with the higher tax rate makes it a legit conversation for national economists to have.

I'm no where near smart enough to be in that conversation. I still think 90% doesn't quite make sense, too high by 30% or more. But maybe a documentary series, culminating in a legitimate debate from established economists would be worth watching.

Don't confuse voting for Bernie Sanders as a vote for 90% tax rate. Even as commander in chief, I just can't see there being a chance that bill see's the light of day.
 
Random but this is the closest thread:

On the left it is what? Clinton, Sanders and Biden?

On the right it is Bush, Christie, Rubio, Paul, Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Fiorina, Roanld McDonald, Barney, Buzz Lightyear...and about 3-4 I am sure I forgot.
 
ElRoach0 said:
90% is rough even for me to think about. But it's not unheard of either... 92% in the 1950's, and it steadily dropped for years after that. Economists have discovered that when the top tax rate was more than 90 percent(in the 50s), economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. Sitting at an $18T dollar debt, and historical evidence from a post war time(somewhat similar to what we have now) showing that we can have an increase in economic growth even with the higher tax rate makes it a legit conversation for national economists to have.

I'm no where near smart enough to be in that conversation. I still think 90% doesn't quite make sense, too high by 30% or more. But maybe a documentary series, culminating in a legitimate debate from established economists would be worth watching.

Don't confuse voting for Bernie Sanders as a vote for 90% tax rate. Even as commander in chief, I just can't see there being a chance that bill see's the light of day.
Click to expand...

You do realize that when the tax rate was 90% it was littered with loopholes that you could drive a truck through, right? In that sense the reduced tax rate is more honest as it closed much of those loopholes but reduced the rate no one was actually paying. Ideally you could bring it down and eliminate loopholes entirely. Liberals hate that idea, however so it gets nowhere. . .
 
BTW, Hillary is the 2nd most qualified and deserves to be president. E. Warren is the left's version of Michelle Bachmann/Sarah Palin/Rick Santorum but butch as ****. It's no surprise the lefty ideologues worship her.
 
framer said:
You do realize that when the tax rate was 90% it was littered with loopholes that you could drive a truck through, right? In that sense the reduced tax rate is more honest as it closed much of those loopholes but reduced the rate no one was actually paying. Ideally you could bring it down and eliminate loopholes entirely. Liberals hate that idea, however so it gets nowhere. . .
Click to expand...


Next up these two will bitch about Reagan reducing rates but won't mention the plethora of loopholes he closed. TRICKEL DWN TRICKEL DOWN!!!!!
 
framer said:
You do realize that when the tax rate was 90% it was littered with loopholes that you could drive a truck through, right? In that sense the reduced tax rate is more honest as it closed much of those loopholes but reduced the rate no one was actually paying. Ideally you could bring it down and eliminate loopholes entirely. Liberals hate that idea, however so it gets nowhere. . .
Click to expand...

I hate the idea because changing two things at once only leads to fighting over which change made the biggest difference. Oddly enough, the only reason conservatives like this and/or a flat tax on everyone and everything is because they have the money. Under that concept, the poor's tax would go up $100-$400 a person the rich would each save a cool half a million in decreased taxes.

This is a large ship.. baby steps would serve us best. Cut the tax breaks... cut the loop holes.. crack down on tax evasion. THEN let's evaluate how we're doing on the increasing debt we have. Then let's make an action plan; increase or decrease as necessary.
 
Stoked said:
Random but this is the closest thread:

On the left it is what? Clinton, Sanders and Biden?

On the right it is Bush, Christie, Rubio, Paul, Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Fiorina, Roanld McDonald, Barney, Buzz Lightyear...and about 3-4 I am sure I forgot.
Click to expand...

Actually, let's run on the Franklin/Roach0 co presidency. We'll start making up facts for both sides, so we can get half of both majorities to vote for us.
 
I would vote for Buzz Lightyear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top